What is the difference between Psychology and Philosophy?

Mar 6 2014:
Those kids who do not wish to fool around with some "funny" guess read at least The Story Of Psychology by Morton Hunt. This book is very easy to read and it makes a great introduction to this relatively "new" field - psychology.

Philosophy is involved in understanding the relativity's and interconnections that exist, between life's realities (And the mysterious) relative to the biosphere of our existence, and the Universe.

Psychology is trying to relate to and understand human behavior, based upon and subject to, the observers interpretations, and the assumptions they (Psychologist's) have made in regard to their observations (Of human, primate, and animal behavior); with a view of developing an overall and generalized overview/theory of the Human Psyche and its behavioral mechanisms.

Mar 10 2014:
I respect what you think for Yourself, Carl. In general or classical PHILOSOPHY we may find very different ideas which can be somehow shared among many of us or just rejected, but PHILOSOPHY is still chasing the meaning of nature of our whole existence- and the grandest questions of all questions we may ever ask are still unanswered.

As the fundamental law of nature has been discovered over millennia ago (commonly unlearned to this very day) we still have to learn - we may not see the world as it is because it transforms into new worlds faster than we are ever able to perceive it. It is Heraclitus Flux. Another unavoidable law is that our perceptions of whatever we call realities we may sense are greatly limited, said Protagoras.

Philosophy is not "fashionable" any longer it is concedired unpractical and in our age, has been turned into a the circus of math calculus...

So where is there any real difference of any matter between our two first paragraphs?

I am curious' what fundamental law of nature was discovered millennia ago and by whom?

I have never heard of Heraclitus Flux;

we may not see the world as it is because it transforms into new worlds faster than we are ever able to perceive it.

That is a statement/opinion rather than empirical, however I would not disagree but rather I would re - term it as, we are unable to perceive reality (s) as it is and they are, as they are in constant states of a/the rapidity of their interactions, and their conversions, that are beyond our perceptions, and our ken.

In sum I think we are of the same wave length relative to the nature of philosophy; and all of my own, extend from my own experiences, questioning, and considerations rather than that of the philosophers of history.

Mar 22 2014:
Since both are based upon assumptions and limited understandings about very complex systems and structures that are still to this day poorly understood there seems to be little overall difference between them in knowledge although psychology seems to have more adherents and popularity than philosophy. While some would argue that philosophy offers deeper understandings the psychology adherents will suggest theirs is a more relevant understanding.

Mar 6 2014:
Philosophy considers reality an annoyance to explain away.
Psychology considers ideas a way to explore reality about a certain topic.
Some psychology in practice slides dangerously close to philosophy.

Mar 6 2014:
casually saying...
ones thoughts are his psychology and if that thoughts are socially acceptable (not absolutely but relatively) and are preached they become philosophy.
both have the same origin.. MIND!

Mar 4 2014:
i think the previous comments have explained sufficient differentiation. I will then try to address your seeming confusion. Psychology CAN overlap with Philosophy, after all, psychology came from philo. A good example would be the existential school of thought of psychology. They have a commonality in the question 'why did he do that?' At first, people shared their opinions and argued through 'rational proofs' as to why people do things. From this philo birthed psycho in that, people started to question the viability of 'rationality' when it come to explaining human behavior. A trend then to apply empiricism 'the scientific method', came to be which then shaped what psycho is today. A good way to differentiate them now is with the 'why did he do that?' question.
Psycho would answer something like 'well we would have to diagnose him but i think its because he was born into an unhappy family which is why he took it out on the world.' Answer would vary greatly depending on perspective, but this is just for illustrative purposes.
Philo on the other hand would answer something like this 'well it's because he has realized the frailty of life and is then acting accordingly.'
Philo would deal with the person's 'reasoning' behind his acts, while psycho would deal with the 'unapparent causes' which might explain why he did his acts. I hope I helped.

Mar 4 2014:
phylo is greek for love sophos is greek for knowledege so we can express philosophy as love for knowledge while pshycology is the science that studies human mental behaivor it is completely different

Mar 4 2014:
Here is what wikipedia says philosophy is: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]
Here is what it says psychologists study: Psychologists explore concepts such as perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships, including psychological resilience, family resilience, and other areas. Psychologists of diverse orientations also consider the unconscious mind.[7] Psychologists employ empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. In addition, or in opposition, to employing empirical and deductive methods, some—especially clinical and counseling psychologists—at times rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques.

But what I do know, is that although vaccinations are beneficial! in that just as in nature, if our immune systems are introduced to a small enough and minute amount of an infective organism, they are able to 1. overcome it 2. and develop antigens, 3. and "tag it for future reference".

However unlike MMR, in nature we are usually hit by one form of infective agent at a time, not three (Possibly on top of an already, and unrecognized infection); not three at once, calling on the body's immune system to unnaturally have to carry out stages 1. 2. and 3 simultaneously relative to the three introduced organisms.

Why relative to the degree of possible consequences, should corporate profits and convenience take precedence over possible dangers and complications?

What amazes me is that little thought is given in regard to acquired immunity, relative to the rest of the mammalian kingdom. Our pet dogs/mammals are able to eat the foulest and rottenest of meats and feces etc, without contracting any form of disease as a result, why? Simply because as I said, they have been naturally introduced/ inoculated/vaccinated/protected, via the means of previously having ingested very minute amounts of the infective organism and thus developing an immunity to it.

Interestingly and an area for greater research; so called witches (Naturopaths) were linked with using frogs in their brews and spells; and it so happens that perhaps a decade ago a south american frog was discovered to secrete antibodies through its skin, to protect it from the organisms in the mud surrounding it.

Logic, all frogs must secrete antibodies in order to do the same in all of their surrounding environments; plus it follows that worms, which operate in far fouler surroundings must also do the same in order to survive; so perhaps baby human beings who just love swallowing worms, are a bit more enlightened than immunologist's.